3 ms·

Yes? In feudalism, kings control everything. In capitalism, investors control everything. It's what the system is named after - kinda hard to miss.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Investors don't control Apple, the CEO of Apple does. The investors are random people holding shares of it in their 401k. The company being so big is also they reason they can't control it effectively, because the people holding it are so diffuse that they have significant coordination costs.
- ben_w 1y ago
  In the same way, one could say that the president, prime minister, or similarly titled person controls a democracy. Investors are "one share, one vote", rather than democracy "one person, one vote". The recent thing with Musk/Tesla and his trillion dollar options is being voted on, and Apple face campaigns and have votes, too: https://apnews.com/article/apple-dei-shareholder-proposal-annual-meeting-96637c8d4fa3d5e2a73dc59a59c2485b https://apnews.com/article/apple-dei-shareholder-proposal-an...
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > In the same way, one could say that the president, prime minister, or similarly titled person controls a democracy. That depends how big it is. For something the size of the US, sure, and that's a problem. It's one of the reasons the central government was meant to have limited powers. For something the size of a small town or local business, absolutely not, because then each vote both matters more to the outcome and has more direct consequences to the voter, which dramatically lowers the coordination costs. A single individual could change the outcome just by convincing a small number of local people who are each more inclined to care about it.
- immibis 1y ago
  The investors with effective voting rights are not usually people with retirement funds, but rather the administrators of those retirement fund pools.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    So another case of it not being the investors then.
    - immibis 1y ago
      You invested in Vanguard, and Vanguard invested in the company and promises to give you the same amount of money they get from the company, but doesn't pass through other rights and responsibilities.
sunderw 1y ago
Whether that behaviour is good or bad have nothing to do with the economic system in place. Pure capitalism have obvious flaws. To me, a company being more powerful than a country is one.
impossiblefork 1y ago
Yes, but capitalism is just a name for the bad thing. We don't actually say that we have capitalism, if we did we would basically be saying 'capital ownership by some to the exclusion of others is good actually' and that isn't compatible with having society. You say things like 'free markets are wonderful and efficient and we don't believe that they lead to the kind of outcomes that people who have come up with terms like "capitalism" believe they will'.
matheusmoreira 1y ago
This is feudalism. Technofeudalism, to be precise. Corporations have created digital fiefdoms and reduced us all to serfs.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

Investors don't control Apple, the CEO of Apple does. The investors are random people holding shares of it in their 401k. The company being so big is also they reason they can't control it effectively, because the people holding it are so diffuse that they have significant coordination costs.

ben_w 1y ago
In the same way, one could say that the president, prime minister, or similarly titled person controls a democracy. Investors are "one share, one vote", rather than democracy "one person, one vote". The recent thing with Musk/Tesla and his trillion dollar options is being voted on, and Apple face campaigns and have votes, too: https://apnews.com/article/apple-dei-shareholder-proposal-annual-meeting-96637c8d4fa3d5e2a73dc59a59c2485b https://apnews.com/article/apple-dei-shareholder-proposal-an...
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > In the same way, one could say that the president, prime minister, or similarly titled person controls a democracy. That depends how big it is. For something the size of the US, sure, and that's a problem. It's one of the reasons the central government was meant to have limited powers. For something the size of a small town or local business, absolutely not, because then each vote both matters more to the outcome and has more direct consequences to the voter, which dramatically lowers the coordination costs. A single individual could change the outcome just by convincing a small number of local people who are each more inclined to care about it.
immibis 1y ago
The investors with effective voting rights are not usually people with retirement funds, but rather the administrators of those retirement fund pools.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  So another case of it not being the investors then.
  - immibis 1y ago
    You invested in Vanguard, and Vanguard invested in the company and promises to give you the same amount of money they get from the company, but doesn't pass through other rights and responsibilities.

sunderw 1y ago

Whether that behaviour is good or bad have nothing to do with the economic system in place. Pure capitalism have obvious flaws. To me, a company being more powerful than a country is one.

impossiblefork 1y ago

Yes, but capitalism is just a name for the bad thing. We don't actually say that we have capitalism, if we did we would basically be saying 'capital ownership by some to the exclusion of others is good actually' and that isn't compatible with having society. You say things like 'free markets are wonderful and efficient and we don't believe that they lead to the kind of outcomes that people who have come up with terms like "capitalism" believe they will'.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

This is feudalism. Technofeudalism, to be precise. Corporations have created digital fiefdoms and reduced us all to serfs.